On July 8, 2013 the Governor of Connecticut, Dannel Malloy stepped up to the microphone and made a series of major announcements about the critical topic of energy.

Governor Malloy’s first task at the podium was to present the law he had just signed which set in place and partially implemented a Comprehensive Energy Strategy for the Nutmeg State. As CLF said in our press statement, this new law position Connecticut to take critical steps toward reaping the benefits of energy efficiency, our strongest, best and most widely available renewable resource.  The State can create the much-needed jobs and consumer savings it seeks by ramping up the state’s electricity and natural gas efficiency programs, rather than rushing to build costly and unnecessarynew natural gas infrastructure. Under its energy strategy Connecticut is moving to foster some great infrastructure, like charging stations for electric vehicles, but is also taking some very questionable steps towards building new natural gas pipes that will last for decades – long after we will have had to kick the fossil fuel habit if we are going to avert climate disaster.

The second subject of the announcement by Governor Malloy was the official launch of a large-scale purchase of energy from wind and solar power projects.  Thanks to this purchase, Connecticut residents will benefit from cleaner air, more stable energy prices and new, green jobs. This initiative allows Connecticut to join with Massachusetts to purchase energy ‘in bulk’ and have each state recognize the considerable economic benefits of regional collaboration. Connecticut’s purchase seeks to bring under contract wind power capable of producing over 500 Megawatts of electricity – which means that during peak wind conditions those wind farms will be producing more power than the mammoth and obsolete oil and coal power plants that blight the waterfronts of Bridgeport and Norwalk.  However, as we also noted in our statement, the renewable energy law which enables the purchase contains potential pitfalls alongside its promise of new wind and solar development, especially as regarding imports of large hydropower from Canada.  Butif implemented correctly, the renewable energy purchase will ensure that hydropower imports will complement rather than inhibit homegrown wind and solar development.

The Mars Hill Windfarm in Maine.

CLF is proud to have played a role in moving the renewable energy purchase forward and reducing the risk that imported hydropower will be used inappropriately. We look forward to working to ensure that this balance is maintained with imported hydropower playing an important supporting role behind wind and solar power while displacing fossil fuel fired power generation.

Northeast Utilities (NU) tells investors and the public that it is will announce a new northernmost route for its Northern Pass transmission project by a certain date. The date arrives. A “project update” appears on the website of NU subsidiary and project developer Northern Pass Transmission LLC, saying that it isn’t ready to announce the new route just yet.

What’s behind the curtain, Northern Pass? (photo credit: flickr/Nick Sherman)

Sound familiar? It happened at the end of 2012. As reported in the Caledonian Record, it happened again last week, a mere month after NU said – in writing to investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission – that it would announce a new route by the end of March. This is the fourth self-imposed deadline that Northern Pass’s developer has failed to meet since last summer. You’d be forgiven if you started asking yourself whether Northern Pass’s route is the transmission equivalent of vaporware.

For whatever reason, NU has repeatedly misled the public and its investors about the Northern Pass project, and not just the project’s schedule.

• Its claims regarding the climate benefits of the project are based on the demonstrably false assertion that large-scale hydropower has no greenhouse gas emissions. The other New Hampshire benefits that NU ascribes to the project are little more than overblown talking points that do not withstand scrutiny.  
• Last November, NU’s CEO misled investors by falsely claiming broad support for Northern Pass among environmental groups, New Hampshire’s governor, and the regional operator of the electric grid; a corporate spokesperson then misrepresented what he said in an attempt to cover up the misstatements. 
• While it continues to insist Northern Pass-transmitted hydropower needs no subsidies, NU has been openly lobbying to obtain special treatment for large-scale hydropower from Connecticut officials and the Connecticut state legislature.

Securities regulators should take note of this pattern of behavior and insist on honesty and transparency from NU, just as Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley did when NU recently balked at revealing its CEO’s 2012 compensation package. As we’ve said before, investors, the public, and our energy future depend on accurate information and forthright disclosures from energy companies. That’s not what we’re getting from NU on Northern Pass.

On a sloppy March 19, while our changing climate threw a late winter storm of ice, snow, hail, sleet and rain at New England, a legislative hearing room in Hartford Connecticut was the focus of regional energy policy attention. The  Energy and Technology Committee of the Connecticut Legislature was holding a hearing on a bill to revise the Renewable Energy Portfolio standard of Connecticut – the Nutmeg State’s piece of the regional effort that has inspired a rising tide of wind and solar energy development across New England.

The bill before the committee that day, which bears the spine tingling and exciting name of “SB 1138 – An Act Concerning Connecticut’s Clean Energy Goals” was a complex piece of legislation making a whole series of changes to the important law that is Connecticut’s part of a successful regional effort to build new clean energy facilities.

An odd and disturbing subtext was this: at the very same moment that the hearing was going on the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEEP) announced and released online a study of the very program being revised by the proposed law.  This meant that as DEEP Commissioner Dan Esty was introducing and explaining a law to change a critical energy and environmental program his Department was releasing a draft study, which would go through two months of public process, to decide whether to make the very kind of changes that the bill he was introducing would make. This is very similar to a group of kids playing baseball in front of plate glass window while promising to have a really focused conversation about where (and where not) was a safe place to play ball, vowing to do so right after their game ended.

To be fair, there is a real urgency to one part of the bill: the provision that would enable Connecticut to move quickly, perhaps in cooperation with other states, to enter into long-term contracts with windfarms and take advantage of the limited extension of the federal renewable energy incentives that (unless Congress changes its mind yet again) only apply to projects that are in construction by the end of 2013 – a deadline that seems like a long ways away, unless you are trying to build a large facility like a windfarm, in which case you understand that getting contracts in place as soon as possible is needed to have shovels in the ground and construction underway by the end of the year.

But another topic was the main focus of the hearing: the proposal to allow large Canadian hydroelectricity to participate in the program, a change long sought by Canadian provinces who seek to import money in exchange for power – and a change long opposed by those who wanted to keep the program focused on building new wind and solar resources for New England.

The hearing brought forth a flood of testimony. While there were over 100 pieces of written and in-person testimony presented to the committee it appears that only the state-owned Hydro Quebec utility, who would likely handsomely benefit if the bill became law, and Northeast Utilities, who are trying to build the infamous Northern Pass transmission line to bring that power to market, testified in favor of the very controversial change in eligibility benefiting large Canadian hydropower.

CLF’s testimony on Bill 1138 criticized that change in the law as disrupting a very successful renewable energy program, as did the testimony of business leaders and labor unions and many, many others. Our testimony graphically illustrated the ever-rising progress of wind power in New England as RPS-inspired projects came on line and fed clean power into the regional grid.

Some members of the committee, including Rep. Brian Becker, actively raised the question of whether the urgent portion of the bill that would allow Connecticut to move forward with procurement of wind and solar this year, in tandem with other states, could be severed from the other controversial portions of the bill that could be reviewed and discussed separately. No real response was ever given to this very legitimate concern.

In the aftermath of the hearing some of the environmental and business groups who testified delivered a letter to the legislative leadership summarizing the situation and, extraordinarily, officials in Massachusetts state government expressed concern about the bill – telling reporters that:

Massachusetts has taken the lead, working very closely with other New England states, in putting together a regional procurement plan for renewable energy. While we embrace a wide range of clean energy initiatives, we have serious concerns about how Connecticut’s proposed changes to its renewable portfolio standard will affect the region’s renewable market

Undeterred by this criticism and controversy and ignoring the clear issues of good government and process, as well as the need to foster business development through clear and consistent rules adopted after careful process, the Committee met and considered a very slightly revised version of the bill on March 20 in a meeting recorded in an online video.  Eight members of the Committee expressed real concern about the deep and systematic changes being made to a critical clean energy program. They, once again, aired the idea of severing the one small provision that needed to be moved rapidly, considering the rest of the bill after the study, already underway, was completed. Again, they did not get a public response.  The final vote of 16-8 shows who on the Committee stood where.  It is indeed striking not one of the 16 who voted “yea” was willing to defend their vote.

All signs point to the bill continuing to move ahead at a very rapid clip – in fact it may come to the floor of the legislature for a vote as soon as March 27 – when new gun laws being considered in the wake of the Newtown tragedy will be absorbing public interest.

If you live in Connecticut, or know someone who does, please use our action alert to urge the legislative leadership to stop the rush towards changing this important energy and environmental program.  Instead, very specific and timely action to join with other states to enter into long term contracts with new windfarms is needed and the rest of the changes to the renewable energy program should be carefully studied and considered.

We are delighted by the news that Gina McCarthy has been nominated as Administrator the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over the course of the last two decades the staff of Conservation Law Foundation has worked productively with Gina in her various roles in Massachusetts state government, during her tenure as the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and, most recently, as Deputy EPA Administrator for Air and Radiation.

Gina is a fierce advocate for the health and welfare of our children and families. She was instrumental in the creation of the landmark nation and world-leading efforts to rein in mercury and toxics use and pollution in Massachusetts and across New England.

Gina is both a hard-nosed negotiator and a sympathetic ear always willing to listen to criticism and learn from just about anyone. Indeed, the “McCarthy Principle” of crafting regulations can best be summarized in her own words: “In nearly all cases the more people are involved in making a decision, the better the decision will be.”

Her engagement, over the years, on nearly every conceivable environmental issue, ranging from the transportation system of Greater Boston, holding her own state transportation agencies to account for their obligation to help clean up our air, to the clean-up of contaminated groundwater at the Massachusetts Military Reservation on Cape Cod to her powerful leadership in crafting the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, has prepared her well for the breathtaking scope of issues that land on the EPA Administrator’s desk.

Her sincerity, humor, willingness to admit error, flashes of caustic (and often self-deprecating) wit are all qualities that disarm those who approach her, and help explain the deep loyalty of those who have worked with her directly.

At the end of the day, Gina is at heart still the same person who once served as a municipal public health agent, worrying about the families of one town in Massachusetts. But that person now has deep and essential knowledge about the complex worlds of energy, environmental and climate policy and a broad set of tools essential to meeting the powerful challenges that EPA faces in the 21st Century.”

. . . And she is wicked smart and a wicked big Red Sox fan.

This is a family time of year, when many families come together and enjoy love, comfort and tradition. But we cannot embrace the joy of family this year without feeling a small portion of the immeasurable pain of the families in Newtown, CT – or the enormous agony that is felt on a regular, tragically recurring basis by many families in our own neighborhoods in Boston, Worcester, Springfield and Providence whose loved ones are killed in gun-related violence.

Which leads me to conclude: It is time for gun control.

Which in turn leads to the logical question: why would this environmentalist take such a position? Here’s why I think environmentalists should:

Traditional environmentalists are not in the business of understanding the complexities of gun control and violence in America, although many of our environmental justice partners have long recognized this issue.

However, we are in the business of promoting healthy, vibrant and safe communities; it is a core principle of Conservation Law Foundation’s mission to protect New England’s environment for the benefit all people. And we certainly are part of a larger family of mission-driven organizations that are not afraid to say what is wrong and to stand up for what is right.

Just as it is wrong to have too much carbon in our air, too much nitrogen and phosphorus in our waters, too few fish in our oceans, and too many miles between where our food is grown and where we eat it, it is wrong to have too many guns on the streets and in our homes. These wrongs we can help to make right. And we must speak in favor of those who strive to make right other wrongs, such as gun violence.

30,000 Americans die from firearms each year. The uncontrolled burning of coal kills about the same number every year. And traffic-related deaths claim that number again, while we continue to drive too many miles and public transit ekes by on fewer public dollars than it needs.

What is wrong with this picture? One thing is that powerful, vested interests have distorted the public discussion about each of these issues, making it impossible even to have a rational conversation about what is truly in the public good.

Just as gun control advocates struggle with the gun lobby to have a rational conversation about gun violence, environmentalists struggle with the fossil fuel lobby to have a rational conversation about national energy policy.

That our collective craving to protect our children may actually break through the pathological gridlock in Washington in pursuit of the greater public good – especially for the benefit of those least able to defend themselves – is a great reason for environmentalists – and all who desire to “bend the arc of the moral universe toward justice,” to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – to support gun control, right now.

The explosion at a nearly-completed power plant under construction in Connecticut illustrates the direct dangers inherent in harnessing fuels like natural gas.  The accident occurred during the “purging” of the gas lines that were to provide the fuel for the plant – an activity of concern to some observers who believe it to be an unsafe practice, and even  has elicited investigation by the government regulators who oversee such plants.

The workers who lost their lives, or were injured, in the explosion, and their families, should be in the thoughts and prayers of all.

We should never forget that the power that we use to operate our homes, offices and wireless devices does not come free – and sometimes we pay that price with something more precious than mere money.  The implications and impacts of our flipping a switch and plugging in appliance are rarely visible but they are very real.